AMANCHARLA GOPAL KRISHNA RAO Vs. VEMURU PADMAWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The CRP is filed against the orders of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in CMA No.21 of 1995 and Cross- Objections setting aside the order of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, Nellore in RCC No.32 of 1986.

(2.) The appellants are the tenants. It is necessary to narrate certain events which led to filing of the Rent Control Case. Originally one Smt. Vanajakshi was the owner of the demised premises and her husband Ratniah was looking after the premises. It was leased out to the father of the appellants. After the death of their father, the appellants came into possession and continued to be the tenants under Smt. Vanajkshi. But, however, an application was filed by Smt. Vanajakshi in RCC No.28 of 1984 for eviction of the appellants on the ground of wilful default. The appellants- tenants also filed an application in RCC No.37 of 1984 seeking permission to deposit the rents. While RCC No.28 of 1984 pending, the original owner sold the property to the respondent herein (Smt. Vemuru Padmavathi) under a registered sale deed (Ex.Al) on 28-3-1985. Thereafter the respondent filed an application in RCC No.32 of 1986 for eviction of the tenants on the ground of willful default and bona fide personal occupation. It is also noticed in this regard that the appellants filed another application in RCC No.31 of 1986 seeking fixation of fair rent, which was allowed on 29-8-1986 fixing the fair rent at Rs.150/- per month. The application filed by the tenants earlier in RCC No.37 of 1984 was allowed as the original owner remained ex- parte and in pursuance of that order, the tenants continued to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.225/-, but however after the fair rent was fixed in RCC No.31 of 1986 they continued to deposit the rent at Rs. 150/-. Be that as it may, these facts are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this CRP.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller the matter was resisted by the appellants- tenants on the ground that Ex.Al sale deed was not valid and it was only invented for purpose of evicting the appellants from the demised premises and the appellants did not accept the attornment at any point of time. It was also pleaded that where was no wilful default and the bona fide personal requirement was not genuine.